Transit
Should DC take over local bus routes?
Except for five Circulator routes, all local buses in DC are run by Metro. What if DC took them over and ran its own, citywide bus system for the routes that don't cross into Maryland and Virginia?
Photo by Tuaussi on Flickr.
At a recent meeting of the TPB Technical Committee, DDOT Associate Director Scott Kubly said DDOT is working on three ways to reduce the constant growth in Metro operating costs, which repeatedly forces more jurisdictional contributions that are tough to find, fare hikes, and/or service cuts.
One is to add bus lanes and queue jumpers to speed buses, which we've discussed repeatedly. Saving time on busy bus routes not only helps riders, but also reduces the number of hours Metro has to pay bus drivers. After a slow start, DDOT has made clear that they will actively pursue this.
Another is to make better use of taxi vouchers to cut down on the number of MetroAccess trips, each of which costs more than a taxi ride. If DC can encourage more disability-accessible taxis and find ways to move more MetroAccess riders to taxis without inviting abuse, it could save on the spiraling costs of paratransit service while maintaining necessary access for persons with disabilities.
Finally, according to Kubly, DDOT's contract with First Transit for the Circulator costs 30% less per hour than Metrobus, and Circulator drivers and mechanics are union-represented just like Metrobus employees. DDOT might be able to save money by converting most of the local routes to local control.
Back when each state had separate, private bus systems, riders crossing from DC to Maryland often had to transfer at the state line. This plan wouldn't return to those days since regional bus routes would stay regional and run by WMATA. And Maryland and Virginia already have transferred many of their own local routes to local bus systems.
Would this be a good idea? It has a number of advantages and disadvantages.
Cost. As above, this could save money. However, others have argued that the Circulator is just cheaper because it's a small system and because it employs more younger drivers. Make it large and wait a few decades, and the costs might just start to equal those of Metrobus. For example, the Fairfax Connector and Ride-On have similar cost structures to Metrobus. On the other hand, those aren't bid out to contractors like the Circulator is.
Greater local coordination around intersections, lanes and more. DDOT designs new streetscapes and handles signal timings, while WMATA runs the buses. Sometimes, DDOT wants stops in one place, and WMATA in another. Or WMATA wants a bus lane, but has to rely on DDOT. If one agency is handling both sides of the equation, the coordination can happen more smoothly, or at least there's a DDOT Director and a Mayor there to referee disagreements.
Greater local sense of ownership. For a while, it seemed like DDOT might not be prioritizing bus lanes as highly as streetcars because they controlled the streetcar project and not the buses. The Mayor and Council end up spending more energy on local transit they control rather than systems run by a much larger regional entity. If DC controlled the routes, perhaps buses would rise in the city's priorities.
Rationalize bus fares. Why is the Circulator $1 while Metrobuses are $1.50 ($1.70 without SmarTrip)? Originally, DC wanted to make the bus appealing to tourists and easy to pay for with cash. But we've ended up in the bizarre and unfair situation where on 14th Street for example, the bus that goes to the richer neighborhoods is a cheaper Circulator, while the bus to poorer neighborhoods is pricier.
Jim Graham has constantly fought against raising bus fares, but outer jurisdictions often have pushed for higher fares. If DDOT ran more local buses, it could revamp the fares, even making all buses $1 if it had the money.
More nimble decisionmaking. DDOT can move faster on making decisions, or at least they have in recent years.
Less regional coordination. The flip side of a more nimble process is that DC might plan the system with less regard for regional mobility. Just look at the Georgia Avenue streetcar, which ends in Takoma instead of Silver Spring. Even though regional bus routes would stay with WMATA, would DDOT do as much to plan a local bus route in a way that facilitates transfers for riders going to Maryland or Virginia?
More confusing for riders. To plan a trip, a rider now needs to consider a number of different bus systems. They're not always on the same map. One trip planner doesn't necessarily consider all of the systems. Technology and open data feeds can solve some of this, but there will still be some hurdles to understand the full system.
 | David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.   |
Comments
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- Metro policy for refunds after delays falls short, riders say
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
by Adam L on Oct 28, 2010 1:14 pm • link • report
by Michael Perkins on Oct 28, 2010 1:19 pm • link • report
I would add that not all buses should use the "DC Circulator" brand, preferably only the ones with potential for eventual streetcar conversion would use it. Assuming DDOT would take over WMATA routes, it might be best to keep existing line numbers, routes, and even drivers. What would happen to all the WMATA drivers if their bus routes were suddenly transfered to DDOT?
by John on Oct 28, 2010 1:22 pm • link • report
by Michael Perkins on Oct 28, 2010 1:24 pm • link • report
by Jacob on Oct 28, 2010 1:26 pm • link • report
by andrew on Oct 28, 2010 1:29 pm • link • report
Another advantage: better buses.
The lack of regional coordination is a real problem, but let's be honest: given WMATA's disinclation to be innovate with buses, and the other headaches, regional coordination is not so hot right now anyway.
by charlie on Oct 28, 2010 1:30 pm • link • report
Have you ridden the new WMATA buses? I'd say they're nicer than the Circulator buses.
by MLD on Oct 28, 2010 1:48 pm • link • report
by jcm on Oct 28, 2010 2:10 pm • link • report
@MLD : Agreed - WMATA's newer buses give Circulator a run for its money.
PS: Anyone else find Circulators (esp. the 3-door ones) to have poor climate control?
by John on Oct 28, 2010 2:26 pm • link • report
1000 times NO.
by Redline SOS on Oct 28, 2010 2:31 pm • link • report
@Michael Perkins suggests that WMATA bus drivers made redundant by a DC bus takeover could apply for jobs with the new operating company, but it's a stretch to believe they'd be hired at the same level of compensation. At the very least, any benefits that get better with a longer employment span will be reset.
One can imagine a cycle where the contract is bid every few years, and won by a company that, even though it is employing largely the same workforce, is able to deliver a lower bid simply because it re-casts the drivers as new--and therefore cheaper--employees.
by thm on Oct 28, 2010 2:32 pm • link • report
by Jim on Oct 28, 2010 2:32 pm • link • report
by charlie on Oct 28, 2010 2:36 pm • link • report
I up until recently have been working for a private operator of public transportation. What I can assure you is that they take their job seriously.
I would also add that metrobus could buy the same buses as the DC circulator ones. As you may already know DC circulator buses are European style buses. I don't know who built the chassis, but the body and the interior has been designed by VanHool, a Belgian company.
I would totally try to transfer routes to the private sector. It has been done before: All London bus routes are already operated by private bus companies. Service levels and routes are decided by TFL, whilst private companies bid to operate the system. The system works well. But for it to happen DDOT really needs some very qualified people to set up and control the system! I believe DDOT has already those people so DDOT should go ahead! 42/43 is one route they should start with! the sooner the better!
by Vincent Flament on Oct 28, 2010 2:37 pm • link • report
Mostly because the system is, as David mentioned, smaller. Circulator uses all the same type of buses making repairs cheaper (both in terms of replacement parts and number of mechanics needed to repair the relatively new buses), the buses travel fewer miles (reducing wear and tear), and most of the lines don't operate as often as Metrobus (i.e. few lines run at night). The drivers also tend to be younger (i.e. don't earn as much and retired personnel aren't receiving pension benefits). In addition, much of the management costs are handled by DDOT, and are therefore externalized.
The ballooning expenses associated with Metro's personnel costs are the result of mandatory pay increases (which Metro apparently agreed to), increased costs of fringe benefits like health care, and pension payouts for retiring employees.
by Adam L on Oct 28, 2010 2:37 pm • link • report
by Vincent Flament on Oct 28, 2010 2:40 pm • link • report
by Snowpeas on Oct 28, 2010 3:00 pm • link • report
by Matt on Oct 28, 2010 3:13 pm • link • report
And remember, the big operating cost for public transportation is labor-Adam L touched on the obligations Metro is saddled with. Saving on labor costs can help you reduce fares and/or improve service, which helps the transit-dependent poor.
by EJ on Oct 28, 2010 3:24 pm • link • report
By the way, if DC is smart, they will continue to contract out their bus service. That kind of competition has been demonstrated to be an effective way to manage costs while preserving good quality of service.
Because an inter-state compact created WMATA, WMATA ought to be focused on cross-boundary transit. Metrobus routes should be limited to those that cross the boundaries between VA - DC, VA-MD, or MD-DC. All of the Metro Rail routes already cross such boundaries.
by anonymous coward on Oct 28, 2010 3:36 pm • link • report
Or more likely, can reduce pressure on subsidies while keeping the same fares and service.
by Michael Perkins on Oct 28, 2010 3:40 pm • link • report
The cost savings from employee pensions is a similar problem. WMATA is still going to have the pension obligations for previous employees and current employees. So what's left is effectively trying to force long tenured employees to take a pay cut. Trouble there is, it's likely that the union is seniority based, which means the newer drivers will lose their jobs with WMATA and go to DDOT. WMATA's costs will go through the roof, and DC is going to be on the hook for it.
If there are actual efficiencies in the system at DDOT it's one thing. If the savings just comes from squeezing some junior employees while simultaneously increasing costs at WMATA (which DC has to pay anyway), then it doesn't make much sense.
by jcm on Oct 28, 2010 3:53 pm • link • report
all the 30's, 70's, 96, 97, 80's (except the 80) B, E, G, K, L, R, V routes,
all A, S, U, W, except one or two routes
What about buses that travel on Eastern, Western, Southern Avenues to turn around.
What about buses that travel into Maryland during rush hour and no other times.
About 85 % of bus routes on the eastern side of the Anacostia would still be under WMATA
by kk on Oct 28, 2010 4:34 pm • link • report
If you really want to save money, bid the bus system out and have it overseen by a WMATA manager who will aggressively push for the items above.
by dano on Oct 28, 2010 4:45 pm • link • report
One website, one brand, one fare model.
by JJJJ on Oct 28, 2010 6:25 pm • link • report
by Daniel on Oct 28, 2010 6:48 pm • link • report
Also, the Circulator buses are nicer in general, but they're also not hybrids like the newest of WMATA's fleet. Would a DC transit system be as green?
On the other hand, more seamless transfers between the local bus network and the streetcar would be nice. And if it could mean more consolidated stops for faster service, then I'm all for it, although I fear the incoming presumptive mayor's focus on process over results may hinder any progress on that front.
by Anonymous on Oct 28, 2010 6:58 pm • link • report
You got it!
by Adam L on Oct 28, 2010 7:12 pm • link • report
by DAJ on Oct 28, 2010 8:13 pm • link • report
i'm generally down with 'improved bus service', but 'bus lanes' is where i...get off the bus. :-D
specifically, i object to buses getting dedicated lanes before bikes get dedicated lanes. we just read a post about thinking of bike sharing as a new transit mode (i.e. a part of 'public transit'), followed by a story of bike racks filling up at East Falls Church.
so, all i'm saying is...give [bikes] a chance. :)
seriously -- buses can currently travel in relative safety in, out, and around DC -- bikes cannot. perhaps we can deliver both bus lanes and bike lanes at the same time (though, I'm still not generally in favor of bus lanes or buses at all), but bike lanes/cycletracks should take priority over bus lanes. if there is any road/street/area we would consider putting in bus lanes, instead, put in bike lanes first -- ideally protected bike lanes/cycletracks -- then watch biking popularity explode along that route.
this is the _best_ solution to 'improving bus service' -- it's to make fewer people dependent on it, and make everyone a little less dependent on it.
if you want to add/create bus-only lanes _after_ you've added bike lanes, have at it -- I won't try to stop you - there are more important battles. ideally, you keep the buses as far away from bikers as possible, separate buses from bikers with at least some type of physical barrier, etc. stick buses in the middle/left travel lane if you have to.
if we're thinking of subsidizing folks, let's subsidize them in the best possible way -- start handing out discounted bike sharing memberships, etc.
i have no problem, in general, with subsidizing bus riders -- typically, the poorest, least powerful, least privileged, most discriminated against people in society -- high bus fares, as WMATA is now starting to admit, decimates ridership, for obvious reasons (and that lack of ridership is a problem because it represents a real loss of economic/social power/freedom/etc. for the most vulnerable people in society).
by Peter Smith on Oct 28, 2010 8:15 pm • link • report
by DAJ on Oct 28, 2010 8:18 pm • link • report
About the Bus issue: You can make the subcontractor buy and maintain them. That's what happens in most European countries. The capital cost associated with the purchase of buses and what not is then included in the contract.
by Vincent Flament on Oct 28, 2010 8:21 pm • link • report
What strikes me in this conversation is the idea of a "Silver Bullet" fix. Having DDOT become a bus agency vs. contracting Metrobus vs. the status quo, can simply be a matter of changing the name on the door. Why does anyone think that DDOT is anymore capable of running a bus system, then WMATA? If that thinking is based solely upon the performance of the Circulator being better then that of MetroBus, there are more relevant factors than the oversight agency:
1. The age of the fleet
2. The simplicity of the system
3. The limited goals of the system
4. The funding sources for the system
5. The lack of politics involved in the system
6. The labor 'arrangement'
If DDOT were to take over all bus service in the city, many of the above mentioned factors would no longer exist.
Can a contract operator operate bus service within the city in more efficient and effective manner then WMATA? Perhaps. Obviously the profit motive automatically builds in a push for efficiencies and creativity that MAY not exist in a public agency. I find it dis-heartening that we have given up completely on the idea that we cannot hire first class management talent in public agencies. I once worked with a public agency where the manager wanted his agency to operate more like a business and to make more business minded decisions. He worked to promote and hire managers and other personnel who thought the same way. He actually was fairly successful in achieving that goal. However, at one point he was voicing his frustration at getting more entrenched portions of the staff to go along with his approach and behave in a more business like manner. I pointed out to him that he was running a public agency and that he could run it like a business, or a football team, or a whorehouse if he wanted. However the simple reality was that it was a public agency and it was going to require a great strength of leadership to get it to act like something else. He did a good job with it, got the agency to make good business decisions in a lot of instances, but when he retired, it went back to acting like a public agency.
Some have commented that having DDOT operate buses would improve DDOT's coordination of roadway infrastructure with the bus service. That would only happen if the leadership of DDOT were to make buses a priority. If you add a bus division to DDOT, their requests to the traffic signal division or the lane configuration division would not necessarily get anymore priority then WMATA's requests. If we rely on the head of DDOT to decide those priorities, then we have to hope that buses are the greater priority. Why can't the head of DDOT simply do that now when WMATA has a need? Why do we have to create a new bus agency in DDOT to get that priority?
In the end, I do not believe that changing the oversight agency will automatically fix the problems, nor is it required to fix MetroBus's problems. A number of other steps could accomplish the same things:
1. One idea would be to re-organize MetroBus in some manner, such as 4 divisions, Md, VA, DC and regional. They each have budgets, they each have the staff that is needed to be fully dedicated, and they then share certain overhead functions. There then could be joint planning staffs/committees/sessions in order to co-ordinate the efforts of each division. I am sure that there are many other ideas that would work as well.
2. WMATA (or just MetroBus) could become a contracted operation. However, the success of contracts depends heavily on the procurement process, the contract agreement, and the oversight of the said contract. If an agency is plagued by incompetance, and has a culture of mediocrity/failure, then there is no reason to believe that they would be any better at overseeing a contract operation then they are at running the operation. Once again, success is dependant upon the competance of the individuals and the management of the agency.
One thing that is certain is that there needs to be a major change in the culture and institutional thinking in WMATA, most other public transit agencies, and the industry in general. If we want people to give up their cars for public transit, we must first provide a superior product.
by SP on Oct 29, 2010 9:30 am • link • report
by Andrew on Oct 31, 2010 2:01 am • link • report
by Jack on Oct 31, 2010 8:39 am • link • report
by dh on Nov 24, 2010 5:25 am • link • report
by jack on Nov 24, 2010 10:14 am • link • report
by LS on Nov 24, 2010 8:50 pm • link • report
Add a Comment